4 thoughts on “Wolfendale v. Urban Future”

“There are better ways of resolving disagreement than dynamic geography”
“Like what?”
“We don’t know, we need to experiment”
“Why not allow people to resolve argument by simply letting them walk away? Agree to disagre and etc.?”
“No, that’s a bad way of resolving disagreement”

And it goes round and round and round. The “everyone must agree” implication of this guy’s reasoning is blatantly obvious. But people disagree all the time. Thinking that they can agree on absolutely everything is somehow more realistic than allowing them to disagree? (in the mind of the communist, yes) This also clearly shows the hidden desire to tell other people what to do.
People have been trying to tell other people what to do since we were monkeys. Monkey A tries to tell monkey B what to do, monkey B doesn’t want to do it and refuses. Monkey A proceeds to try to force monkey B to do it. The monkeys fight. One of them wins and no matter which one it is it proceeds to try to tell other monkey what to do. And the cycle is initiated again.
The communist is a typical monkey. This is how he resolves arguments:
1. You disagree with him and propose to walk away from each other.
2. He refuses by saying that that is a bad way of resolving conflicts.
3. Then he proceeds to continue trying to make you agree with him.
4. It doesn’t work so then he employs force by either threatening to kill you or just straight up sending you to the Gulag.
Stalin was a smart communist (and monkey). He knew how this process works very well and realizing that steps 2 and 3 are purely superficial for communist argumentation, he simply went from step 1 to step 4.
The absence or presence of steps 2 and 4 in argumentation is what separates communists who say they are not like Stalin, from Stalin.
I don’t know about you, but I appreciate Stalin’s honesty.
“No man no problem” is the most honest thing any communist has ever said.

When the leftist talks about “resolving conflicts” he is thinking of a way of making everyone agree with him. When we talk of resolving conflicts we are thinking of a way of allowing everyone to disagree without repeating yet another monkey anecdote.
The reason why this argument is so tangled is because of this. “Resolving conflict” has a different meaning for you and for this wolfendale guy.
There is no way to agree when we are speaking different languages. This is most obvious when you touch on ‘freedom’.
“Thinking that freedom is getting everything your own way is pretty much control freakery, yes.”
My irony meter is overclocking at this point.
No, you dense idiot. Freedom is to not be forced into submission by people who think they should get everything their own way.

“We will create world peace by forcing everyone to agree!”
Yeah, that sounds like something that will work out ok. It’s unrealistic to allow people to go their separate ways when they disagree, but it’s more realistic to FORCE EVERYONE TO AGREE.